Mahmoud Khalil Appeals Retaliatory Ruling in Immigration Case
The brief, filed before the Board of Immigration Appeals, argues the immigration judge's removal order was baseless, retaliatory, and must be reversed before Mr. Khalil's rights are violated again
NEW YORK – Following the Trump administration’s unprecedented decision to sustain the baseless, after-the-fact charge related to Mahmoud Khalil’s green card application, Mr. Khalil’s legal team filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) today asking that it reverse that decision and terminate the proceedings entirely. This charge was added only after Mr. Khalil challenged his unlawful detention and the use of the foreign policy ground. Regardless of the BIA’s decision, the federal court’s order prohibiting the government from re-detaining or deporting Mr. Khalil as his federal case proceeds remains in effect.
“No fabrications, ideological attacks, or smear campaigns will change the fact that the government’s after-the-fact charges are retaliatory, baseless and have absolutely no support in the record,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “I’ll keep fighting for my right and every other person’s right to speak out against injustice, advocate for Palestinian liberation, and live in peace with their families."
As the brief lays out, the immigration judge rushed to a decision without considering relevant evidence, refused to consider Mr. Khalil’s constitutional challenges to his removal, improperly sustained false, after-the-fact charges — brought by the Trump administration in retaliation for Mr. Khalil’s speech — alleging he misrepresented facts on his green card application, and engaged in multiple procedural irregularities including denying him a hearing on his waiver request.
The brief also explains why the secondary charges are factually inaccurate and meritless; how rare it is for an immigration judge to deny a waiver of removability on a charge like Mr. Khalil’s — particularly against a lawful permanent resident with no criminal record and a U.S. spouse and child; and ultimately how the immigration judge’s decision is further evidence of retaliation.
“The Trump administration will stop at nothing to try to silence Mahmoud and retaliate against him for his strong advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and against the horrors inflicted upon them in Gaza. The misrepresentation charge regarding his green card application is completely baseless, and no truly independent judge could possibly have sustained it,“ said Mr. Khalil’s immigration lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout. “From day one, the Trump administration’s hand-picked Louisiana immigration judge denied out of hand every motion Mahmoud brought without even the pretense of providing him with his constitutional right to a fair hearing. In almost 50 years of practicing immigration law, I have never seen such a sham proceeding. But federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech — and no amount of bogus made-up charges will change that.”
In June 2025, a federal district court in New Jersey ruled that the government’s original justification for initiating immigration proceedings against Mr. Khalil and detaining him amid those proceedings — a statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s alleging that Mr. Khalil’s First Amendment-protected speech could affect U.S. foreign policy interests — was likely unconstitutional and blocked his detention and deportation on that basis. After this ruling, the government shifted its justification for his detention to false, pretextual, and retaliatory charges about alleged misrepresentations on his green card application. The district court rejected the government’s new justification and issued a second ruling, ordering his release. As Mr. Khalil’s legal team has thoroughly outlined in court filings, these after-the-fact immigration charges are meritless and retaliatory.
Then, on January 15, 2026, in a split 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court rulings that had found Mr. Khalil’s detention and removal likely unconstitutional and that had ordered Mr. Khalil to be released pending adjudication of his immigration proceedings. While the ruling was only made on technical grounds and not the core First Amendment arguments in his case, it held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Khalil’s constitutional challenges to his detention and removal. Instead, it held that those claims must be funneled through immigration proceedings.
Since Mr. Khalil still has the opportunity to seek further review of this decision before the full Third Circuit, which he intends to do, the panel’s order is not currently in effect and the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Mr. Khalil at this time.
Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, the ACLU of Louisiana, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Khalil v. Trump
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Khalil v. Trump
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseFeb 2026
Free Speech
Medical Researchers Win Permanent Restoration Of Research On Federal Website. Explore Press Release.Medical Researchers Win Permanent Restoration of Research on Federal Website
BOSTON – Nearly a year after their scholarly research about endometriosis, suicide risk, and patient safety was removed from a government-hosted website because it included references to the LGBTQ+ community, two university researchers have secured a binding agreement requiring the government to maintain the court-ordered restoration of their and others’ work. The agreement prohibits the federal government from removing more research from the website in the future for the same ideological reasons. The Trump administration had removed the research in early 2025 in accordance with an executive order from the Trump administration prohibiting the use of government funds to “promote” or “inculcate” so-called “gender ideology.” The articles removed include “Endometriosis: A Common and Commonly Missed and Delayed Diagnosis,” co-authored by plaintiff Dr. Celeste Royce, which included a sentence about diagnosis in transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and “Multiple Missed Opportunities for Suicide Risk Assessment in Emergency and Primary Care Settings,” co-authored by plaintiff Dr. Gordon Schiff, which included a sentence about heightened risk in LGBTQ+ communities. "This agreement is a win for the First Amendment and for public health,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU. “The government cannot censor medical research because it acknowledges the existence of transgender people. Research free from ideological interference by the government promotes rigor, objectivity, and scientific value, which benefits everyone.” The website, known as PSNet, hosts research from doctors and scholars focusing on patient safety and improving medical outcomes. In addition to the restoration of the work of Dr. Schiff,Dr. Royce, and others, the agreement prohibits the government from removing more articles from PSNet in the future on the basis of the “gender ideology” executive order or a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that set out guidelines for implementing that order. “The Trump administration's politically motivated attacks on science have endangered patient safety, stifled protected speech, and undermined the fundamental academic principles of free inquiry,” said Rachel Davidson, free expression staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The federal government censored important public health articles without any rational or scientific basis — but thanks to our clients’ courage, this work is now restored. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Royce can now continue their work to improve outcomes for patients, and the ACLU will continue to challenge the Trump administration’s abuses of power.” In March 2025, the researchers filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and OPM, arguing that the government violated the First Amendment by imposing a viewpoint-based and unreasonable restriction on the doctors’ participation in a forum the government has opened to private speakers. They also argued that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act, including by removing articles without a reasoned basis. The suit was filed in the District Court of Massachusetts by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. In May, the court issued a preliminary injunction restoring the censored articles to PSNet. “I’m deeply grateful to have supported Yale Law School’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic and the ACLU in this important case,” said Sonam Jhalani, second year law student at Harvard Law School. “Contributing to work that protects scientific integrity and the free exchange of knowledge was a meaningful experience, and I’m proud to have worked alongside those who helped advance these principles.” -
Press ReleaseFeb 2026
Free Speech
Mohsen Mahdawi’s Removal Proceedings Terminated By Immigration Judge. Explore Press Release.Mohsen Mahdawi’s Removal Proceedings Terminated by Immigration Judge
NEW YORK – Attorneys for Mohsen Mahdawi filed a letter today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit announcing that an immigration judge terminated Mr. Mahdawi’s removal proceedings. “I am grateful to the court for honoring the rule of law and holding the line against the government's attempts to trample on due process,” said Mohsen Mahdawi. “This decision is an important step towards upholding what fear tried to destroy: the right to speak for peace and justice. Nearly a year ago, I was detained at my citizenship interview not for breaking the law but for speaking against the genocide of Palestinians. In a climate where dissent is increasingly met with intimidation and detention, today’s ruling renews hope that due process still applies and that no agency stands above the Constitution. This is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of a deeper commitment to peace, dignity, and justice; work I will continue, fearlessly and without apology.” The filing outlines the immigration judge’s decision, which was based on the government’s failure to authenticate a memorandum purportedly from Marco Rubio. This document, which was filed without including referenced attachments, served as the basis for seeking to deport Mr. Mahdawi, and declared Mr. Mahdawi a threat to U.S. foreign policy based solely on his protected speech. The ruling was issued without prejudice, which means the government may appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals or may attempt to refile a new case based on the same charge. “This decision highlights the importance of federal court review of immigration proceedings, especially when First Amendment and other constitutional violations are alleged,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “Had we been unable to pursue Mohsen’s release in federal court, as the government is arguing should be law of the land, he would still be in detention today on a charge that the government itself couldn’t even bother to substantiate 10 months later with basic forms of authentication. The government should take the immigration judge’s hint and drop this absurd case for good.” Mr. Mahdawi was detained in April 2025 and held in detention for over two weeks. He was released on bail on April 30, 2025, after filing a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont in which he argued he was wrongfully detained in retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech. “We’re pleased that the court has terminated this witch hunt of a case,” said Cyrus Mehta of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC. “Mohsen is a peaceful man and a valued member of his communities in Vermont and at Columbia University. The government’s pursuit of his deportation has been an affront to the principle of free speech that undergirds our democracy. The government’s inability to even file the proper paperwork demonstrates how careless and reckless they are being in their policy of detaining innocent people for their speech.” Mr. Mahdawi is represented in both immigration and federal court by Cyrus Mehta and David Isaacson of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC and in federal court by Luna Droubi and Matthew Melewski of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP; Andrew Delaney of Martin Delaney & Ricci Law Group; CLEAR; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the ACLU of Vermont. -
Press ReleaseFeb 2026
Free Speech
New Filings Detail Harrowing Accounts Of Ice And Border Patrol Violence And Intimidation Against Minnesotans. Explore Press Release.New Filings Detail Harrowing Accounts of ICE and Border Patrol Violence and Intimidation Against Minnesotans
MINNEAPOLIS – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Minnesota, and pro bono partners filed an amended complaint and over 80 declarations with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota further exposing the harm Minnesotans are experiencing daily at the hands of federal agents. These filings show that federal agents, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, are continuing to violate the rights of people observing, documenting, and protesting ICE activity in their neighborhoods. “The dozens of stories we shared with the court today only represent a small percentage of the Minnesotans whose constitutional rights were violated by federal agents since December,” said Alicia Granse, staff attorney with ACLU of Minnesota. “Many of our plaintiffs and declarants said they were afraid for their safety after their encounters with federal agents. Despite that understandable fear, they are boldly sharing their stories to demand accountability from the federal government.” The amended complaint adds five new plaintiffs, including TNG-CWA, the largest labor union representing journalists and media professionals, and independent news outlet Status Coup News. It also alleges a policy and pattern of retaliation against people for gathering information about, recording, and protesting federal immigration agents’ activity in public, including through the use of chemical agents, excessive force, unlawful arrest, and surveillance and intimidation. “The First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to gather information about, record, and peacefully protest federal agents carrying out their duties in public view,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “DHS has engaged in a relentless campaign to trample these rights in order to silence and cow those who expose their brutal immigration enforcement tactics. We will use every legal means available to seek accountability for these abuses and to defend the right to document and criticize government lawlessness without fear or intimidation.” The declarations, filed by a diverse group of over 80 community members, recall government intimidation, aggression, and even violence against people documenting, protesting, and witnessing ICE activity. Examples include: “The ICE agent did not say anything to me. Instead, he lowered his window, and pepper sprayed me directly in the face at extremely close range. At no point did ICE give any kind of warning, order, or instruction—not even a verbal “back up”—before pepper spraying me. Had the agent issued even the simplest verbal instruction, I would have complied immediately.” (S.I.) “On the ride over, the agents berated us, telling us that we had interrupted a secret operation to arrest a child abuser. They told me that I deserved what I got for interrupting their operation. I told them that they had been seen knocking on door after door. They did not respond. I told them that they were not treating people with dignity. They did not respond. They asked why I had gone out to observe their operation. I told them that I had seen videos of them mistreating people by tearing families apart and that I wanted to stand up to that. One of the agents admitted to me that it did break his heart to see families torn apart but added that it did not matter.” (J.D.) “I began to turn to leave the area. Next thing I knew, I was being body-slammed into a hard surface. I felt very afraid... With the agents on top of me, I could not breathe... I felt like George Floyd. One of the agents told me to “Shut the fuck up.” I then felt someone place the nozzle of a pepper spray can behind my glasses... I felt searing pain, some of the most intense pain I have felt in my life. I had only been in the area for a few minutes. I had not done anything wrong.” (C.K.) “A woman wearing a gaiter-style mask then leaned out of the front passenger side window of the SUV. She yelled, ‘Emily, Emily, we're going to take you home.’ She then repeated my name again and repeated that they would take me home. She then said my address. She repeated, in a mocking tone, that they were going to escort me home. I was freaked out. I did not care that they had my name, but I was scared for my family. The agents had told me, in effect, that they knew where I lived and could come and get me and my family at any time.” (E.B.) Tincher v. Noem was initially filed by the ACLU of Minnesota and pro bono partners on Dec. 17, 2025, on behalf of six Minnesota residents whose constitutional rights were violated by ICE and other federal agents. -
Press ReleaseFeb 2026
Free Speech
Landmark Settlement Announced In Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Questioning Of Journalists At The Border. Explore Press Release.Landmark Settlement Announced in Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Questioning of Journalists at the Border
NEW YORK – In a win for freedom of the press, the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of San Diego, and Covington & Burling LLP announced a settlement today in a federal lawsuit challenging the unlawful targeting and questioning of five photojournalists at the U.S.-Mexico border. The lawsuit, filed in November 2019 in federal court in the Eastern District of New York against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claimed that border officials violated the journalists’ First Amendment rights. The journalists claimed that they were unconstitutionally targeted for secondary inspection, detention, and questioning by U.S. border officials on the basis of their reporting near the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018 and 2019. In March 2021, the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case, holding that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that border officials violated their First Amendment rights. The case was settled in January 2026. “The future of our democracy depends on the freedom of the press, now more than ever,” said plaintiff Bing Guan. “It’s clear the government’s actions were meant to instill fear in journalists like me, to cow us into standing down from reporting what is happening on the ground. After being targeted for doing just that, I am grateful for what our lawsuit has achieved in defending the rights of journalists to report free from government officials’ scrutiny.” “This settlement confirms what we already knew: what happened to us was wrong,” said plaintiff Kitra Cahana. “Government officials should never put journalists on secret lists, interfere with our ability to work and travel, or pressure us for information at border crossings. My biggest fear is that other journalists may have avoided important stories out of fear of being targeted themselves. Press freedom is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be alarmed when journalists are targeted.” The plaintiffs, journalists Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler, are all U.S. citizen professional photojournalists who — between November 2018 and January 2019 — traveled to Mexico to document people traveling north from Central America by caravan to reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Following their reporting on conditions at the border, these five photojournalists were detained and interrogated by U.S. border officers, who sought information about their sources and observations as journalists. Shortly after, government database information leaked to NBC San Diego in March 2019 revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had engaged in wide-ranging intelligence collection targeting activists, lawyers, and journalists — including these five journalists. “The First Amendment applies at the border to protect freedom of the press,” said Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are thankful to have secured redress for these journalists, to allow them to do their jobs reporting on the news free from unjustified government scrutiny.” As part of the settlement, CBP must issue guidance to certain CBP units regarding the First Amendment and Privacy Act protections that apply when questioning journalists at the border. CBP must also take certain steps to ensure that the journalists’ past reporting at the U.S.-Mexico border should not serve as a basis for future border questioning. The settlement also includes an amount for costs and attorneys’ fees.